alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, Ch afin and Senior Judge Haley

BABCOCK & WILCOX AND INDEMNITY INSUR ANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0378-15-3 PER CURIAM JULY 14, 2015 PAUL MORAN

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Scott C. Ford; McCa ndlish Holton, PC, on brief), for appellants. (Robert E. Evans; Monica Tayl or Monday; Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Babcock & Wilcox and Indemnity Insura nce Company of America (collectively employer) appeal the decision by the Worker s’ Compensation Commission (commission) awarding Paul Moran (claimant) medical benefits for a traumatic brain injury, temporary total disability benefits effectiv e March 5, 2014, and wage loss bene fits prior to April 21, 2014. Employer argues the commission erred in finding th at (1) claimant suffered a causally-related brain injury; (2) the opinions of Drs. Joseph Conley, Gre gory O’Shanick, and David Ross outweighed the contrary opinion of Dr. William Peck ; (3) the treatment provided by Drs. Conley and O’Shanick was reasonable and necessary, causally-related, and au thorized, and a proper referral of physicians was maintained; (4) claimant ’s travel for treatment with Dr. O’Shanick was reasonable; (5) claimant was entitled to wage loss benefits prior to April 21, 2014 and in awarding payment of temporary total disabil ity benefits effective March 5, 2014; andUNPUBLISHED- 2 - (6) claimant was totally disabled from empl oyment after April 21, 2014 and in awarding ongoing temporary total disability benef its. We have reviewed the reco rd and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. A ccordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its opinion. See Mora n v. Babcock & Wilcox, JCN VA00000558282 (Feb. 3, 2015). We dispense with oral argument and su mmarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the Cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 11992E086 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992E086

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - TITLE V : COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - CHAPITRE 1 : RULES OF COMPETITION - SECTION 1 : RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS - ARTICLE 86 /* CODIFIED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY */ **

*
Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0029 *

Article 86

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
###### Editorial Note on Part 300

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

#### § 300.3 Relation to other laws.

Other laws that may apply to fishing activities addressed herein are set forth in § 600.705 of chapter VI of this title.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5088 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit 

to Congress a report on the entrepreneurial challenges facing entrepreneurs with a disability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 

and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit to Congress a report on the entrepreneurial challenges facing entrepreneurs with a disability, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Entrepreneurs with 

5 Disabilities Reporting Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5088 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP CHALLENGES OF 

2 ENTREPRENEURS WITH DISABILITIES. 

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘Ad4 ministration’’ and ‘‘Administrator’’ mean the Small Busi5 ness Administration and the Administrator thereof, re6 spectively. 

7 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

8 of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit 

9 to Congress a report on the challenges that entrepreneurs 

10 with a disability encounter with starting and operating a 

11 business, including— 

12 (1) an assessment of the challenges and needs 

13 of entrepreneurs with a disability; 

14 (2) a description of the resources and support 

15 that the Administration provides to entrepreneurs 

16 with a disability; 

17 (3) a description of outreach to entrepreneurs 

18 with a disability by the Administration, including by 

19 district and regional offices of the Administration, 

20 small business development centers (as defined in 

21 section 3(t) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

22 632(t))), and women’s business centers (as defined 

23 in section 29(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 656(a))); 

24 (4) a description of any joint efforts between of25 fices of the Administration or between the Adminis26 tration and other Federal agencies to advance the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5088 IS

1 goal of supporting the economic success of entre2 preneurs with a disability; 

3 (5) a discussion of any deficiencies in the re4 sources and support described under paragraph (2); 

5 (6) a description of the use of, and access to, 

6 resources of the Administration by entrepreneurs 

7 with a disability; and 

8 (7) any recommendations for legislative actions 

9 that are necessary to address the challenges or needs 

10 of entrepreneurs with a disability that are identified 

11 in the report. 

12 (c) COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO.—No additional 

13 amounts are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

14 this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Open the 

Door to

Clean Lakes!

Clean lakes need 

healthy lakeshores!

•	Grow	native	plants	and	trees		

along	the	lakeshore.

•	Keep	fallen	trees	and	logs	in					

shallow	waters	–	fish	need	them!

•	Mow	tall	and	fertilize	less	to	keep	

out	pollutants.

•	Plant	a	rain	garden	to	absorb	rain	

water.

•	On	driveways	and	paths,	use							

surfaces	that	allow	rain	to	soak	in.

Healthy lakeshores 

need you!

sek

al/ w

o

w

o

/

v

o

g. a

p

e. www
Make a Difference!

Planting native plants, 

trees, and flowers along 

the water’s edge:

•	 Protects	lakes	from	pollution

•	 Provides	habitat	for	bass,	trout,	and	

other	fish	

•	 Helps	property	values	

•	 Prevents	erosion

•	 Reduces	your	carbon	footprint

•	 Increases	aesthetic	beauty

Learn more about healthy 

lakeshores:

www.epa.gov/owow/lakes

EPA 841E1002
[No. 2145.]

#### James Briggs *v.*The State.

t. Theft — Possession—Variance.—• Indictment in this case alleged the ownership of the stolen property to be in M. W., and that it was taken from her possession. The proof showed that M. W. was a widow; that the stolen animal was the property of herself and her children by her deceased husband ; that M. W., if not a lunatic, had not been able to attend, and had not attended, to her business affairs for years; that she lived with S., her father, who attended to her business and was the guardian of her children, and had the sole care and control of the property when stolen. *Held,*that, under the facts, the indictment should have alleged that the property was taken from the possession of S.; or else it should have alleged the ownership in M. W. and her children, and charged that it was taken from the possession of S., who was holding the same for them. The variance between the allegation and proof of possession is fatal.

2. Same.— Venue of the offense is an issue which, to support a conviction, must be affirmatively proved.

Appear from the District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Gf. N. Aldredge. '

The opinion discloses the case. The punishment assessed against the appellant was a term of six years in the penitentiary.

*107[Opinion delivered December 16, 1885.]

Ho brief for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

It was alleged in the indictment that the horse stolen was the property of, and taken from the possession of, M. Webb. The evidence showed that M. Webb was a widow; that the horse was the property of herself and her children by a former husband; that Mrs. Webb, if not a lunatic, was in such condition of mind and body as that, for several years, she had not been able to attend, and had not attended, to any of her business affairs. She lived with W. A. Sanderson, her father, who attended to her business, was the guardian of her children, and had the care, custody and control of the horse in question, and Mrs. Webb did not have the control of the horse or any of her property.

Under these facts, the indictment should have alleged the property to have been in and taken from the possession of W. A. Sanderson (Ba*iley*v. *The*State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 426; *Frazier*v. *The State,*18 Texas. Ct. App., 434, and *Bailey*v. *The State,*decided at the present term, *ante,*p. 68), or the allegation of ownership should have charged the horse to be the property of Mrs. M. Webb and her children, and that it was taken from the possession of Sander-son, who was holding the same for them.

There is fatal variance between the allegation and proof as to possession. The venue of the offense is not affirmatively and directly proven.

*Reversed and remanded.*
§ 19.12 Exceptions to general prohibitions. The prohibitions of the preceding section shall not apply to any person who: ( 1 ) Is acting within the scope of his official duties as an employee or authorized agent of a State or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops; or
( 2 ) Is acting within the limitations of a permit referred to in § 19.21 or § 19.31 of this part.
P. 1



# OAR Box 1850 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 78 ) IV-C- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/18/200811:09:28AM Sheet 78of 161

# 4J* 6 

# * *> ====== _P. 2 a-°>D-O7 

## 2 5-'592 * tt n/-d-o l

Pau l T . Haluz a Director , Governmen t Relation s an d Publi c Affai r Moto r & Equipmen t Manufacturer s Associatio n 132 5 Pennsylvani a Ave , NW Washington , D C 2000 4 Dea r Mr . Haluza : Th e purpos e o f thi s lette r i s t o reca p ou r pas t discussion s relate d t o th e impac t o f th e propose d fuel s an d fue l additive s registratio nregulation s o n smal l businesse s an d t o follo wup o n som e question s tha t aros e durin g ou r meetin g o nThursday , Jul y23 , 1992 . You'v e spoke nwit hSher i Dunatchi k an d mysel f abou t MEMA' s concern s regardin g th e impac t ou r propose d regulation s migh t hav e o nyou r membe r aftermarke t additiv e companies . A s I mentione d t o you , on e o f th e reason s ou r proposa l di d no t contai nspecifi c provision s fo r smal l businesse s wa s a lac k o f adequat e informatio n fromwhic ht o defin e a "small " fue l an d fue l additiv e business . You r offe r t o collec t informatio n fro myou r membe r companie s tha t woul d b e usefu l i nthi s capacit yi s greatl yappreciated . A t ou r Jul y23r d meeting , I presente d yo u wit ha lis t o f dat a item s tha t woul d b e usefu l t o EP Ai ndevelopin g a smal l busines s definition . Yo u recommende d tha t anysurve yMEM Aprepare d shoul d b e sen t ou t t o manufacturer s n o soone r tha nth e wee k o f Septembe r 7 , 199 2 (Labo r Day) , s o tha t mos t vacation s an d plan t shut-down s woul d b e over . Thi s pla nsound s ver yappropriat e t o me . Yo u als o expresse d concer ntha t a surve ylimite d t o onl yMEM Amember s migh t no t b e representativ e o f th e nationwid e aftermarke t industr yan d suggeste d tha t EP Aprovid e compan yname s an d addresse s o f othe r non-membe r aftermarke t manufacturers . Upo nconsidering , w e believ e i t woul d b e inappropriat e fo r u s t o provid e suc ha mailin g list , sinc e thi s surve yi s bein g voluntaril yundertake nbyMEM Aan d ou r office' s involvemen t shoul d b e minimal . However , yo u ma ywan t t o conside r contactin g othe r trad e organization s wit hsmal l busines s members , suc ha s th e Chemica l Specialtie s Manufacturer s Associatio n (CSMA) , t o se e i f the yma yb e intereste d i nparticipatin g i nthi s surve ywit hyou . Th e Senio r Regulator yCounse l fo r CSM Ai s Mr . Joh nE . DiFazio , Jr. , (202-872-8110) . A t th e clos e o f thi s sam e meeting , I understan d tha t yo u an d othe r MEM

A staf f woul d begi n developin g a survey . Perhap s yo uP. 3

J. >-*••— . 

### woul d lik e m e t o revie wa draft . I a mals o availabl e t o answe r an y question s yo u mayhav e an d can b e reache d a t (313 ) 668-4274 . I look forward t o working wit hyo u further . Sincerely , Caroly nKruege r Chemica l Enginee r Specia l RegulatoryProject s Branc h
§ 96.33 Authorization. ( a ) Any party meeting the requirements set forth in § 96.5 is eligible to operate a CBSD on a General Authorized Access basis.
( b ) CBSDs used for General Authorized Access must register with the SAS and comply with its instructions.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V249 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V249

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 9 — Research and Technological Development, and Space - Article III-249 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0109 - 0110 *

Article III-249

In pursuing the objectives referred to in Article III-248, the Union shall carry out the following activities, complementing the activities carried out in the Member States:

(a) implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities;

(b) promotion of cooperation in the field of the Union's research, technological development and demonstration with third countries and international organisations;

(c) dissemination and optimisation of the results of activities in the Union's research, technological development and demonstration;

(d) stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Union.

--------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

September 19 , 2011

Memorandum

Subject: S outh C oast Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and the 1996 Los Angeles Bicycle

Plan

From: Wienke Tax , EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2)

To: South Coast PM2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366

On September 19 , 2011, in response to my question, Jonathan Nadler, SCAG

, called to explain the TCM

process in the South Coast nonattainment area. He indicated that the 1996 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan had

never been included as part of the TCMs in the South Coast SIP.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-10261) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan of Rochester
Medical Corporation, of our report dated October 15, 1997, except for Note 14,
as to which the date is November 5, 1997, with respect to the financial
statements of Rochester Medical Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1997.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 23, 1997
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the annual report of Entorian Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, W. Kirk Patterson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 14, 2008



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ W. Kirk Patterson                            
|W. Kirk Patterson                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 1831.]

#### Tom Pruitt *v.*The State.

1. Assault With Intent to Murder—Charge of the Court.—Assault with intent to murder can be committed only when the assault is made with the specific intent to kill. In charging that' it was sufficient to constitute the ofiense if the assault was made with the intent to inflict serious bodily injury, the trial court committed a fundamental error.

3. Change op Venue.— Bill of Exceptions must present the ruling of the trial court refusing an application for a change of venue, otherwise that question will not be revised by this court.

Appeal from the District Court of Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. H. Teichmueller.

The conviction in this case was for an assault with intent to murder one Walter Moore, in Bastrop county, Texas, on the 2d day of November, 3884. A term of four years in the penitentiary was the penalty awarded.

*G. W. Jones*and *D. M.*Scott, for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

There is a fundamental error in the charge of the court. In effect, it instructs the jury that the offense of assault with intent to murder may be committed without a specific intent to kill,— that it may be constituted by an assault with intent to inflict serious bodily injury upon the person assaulted. Such is not the law. There can be no assault with intent to murder unless the assault was made with the specific intent to kill. (*White*v. *The State,*13 Texas Ct. App., 259; *Harrell*v. *The State,*id., 374; *Gillespie*v. *The State,*id., 415.)

We cannot revise the action of the court overruling the defendant’s application to change the venue, because the same is not pre*130sen ted by bill of exception. (Code Crim. Proc., art. 584; *Bowden v. The*State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 246.)

[Opinion delivered January 9, 1886.]

We will not determine other questions discussed by counsel for appellant, because they are of a character not likely to occur on another trial, and are furthermore not material. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed, and remanded.*
Case 16-28476 Doc 11 Filed 09/08/16 Entered 09/09/16 10:17:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 52547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7455]



[[Page 52547]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator; American Health Information 
Community Chronic Care Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the ninth meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

DATES: September 20, 2006 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090. [Please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building.]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/cc_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be available via Web cast 
at http://www.eventcenterlive.com/cfmx/ec/login/login1.cfm?BID=67.

    Dated: August 29, 2006.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 06-7455 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
# EUR-Lex - 11957A114 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A114

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE THREE - PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS, CHAPTER I: THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, SECTION I: THE ASSEMBLY, ARTICLE 114 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 114

IF A MOTION OF CENSURE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION IS TABLED BEFORE IT , THE ASSEMBLY SHALL NOT VOTE THEREON UNTIL AT LEAST THREE DAYS AFTER THE MOTION HAS BEEN TABLED AND ONLY BY OPEN VOTE .

IF THE MOTION OF CENSURE IS CARRIED BY A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST , REPRESENTING A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY , THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL RESIGN AS A BODY . THEY SHALL CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH CURRENT BUSINESS UNTIL THEY ARE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 127 .